Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 49A: 49A: Clause 15, page 7, line 8, leave out ““general or”” The noble Viscount said: I apologise to the Minister—in his reply on Clause 7 he reminded me that the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, contained a paragraph about the missing list, if may call it that. I notice that I had overlooked it, but previously I had pencilled a triangle against the clause, which is my sign for ““two’s company, three’s a crowd””. That was my hidden comment on that provision. In the amendment and Amendment No. 52A, along with Amendments Nos. 50 and 53, which seek further clarification of consultation, I am probing. I suggest that ““general or”” should be left out and only specifics be left in in relation to directions. The obvious question is: what do the Government have in mind when they say ““general””. That is very wide and it could be used to cover a great deal of matters. Some clarification and certainty would be of great assistance. I want to comment on the order-making power being introduced into the clause as Amendment No. 52. Its effect is to reduce the simple power to give directions to cover only one local authority in relation to the LBRO’s functions, but that does not prevent a direction being made that covers many more than one authority—or, indeed, all authorities—because an order could be laid under that amendment and would be subject only to the negative procedure. Although the point of parliamentary scrutiny has been made, Parliament has been given a very limited power to hold up the Secretary of State’s intention to make a direction. I beg to move.